tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN September 10, 2015 11:00am-1:01pm EDT
other circumstance, we try and see what facts we have to connect, the individual at the keyboard to a particular government. sometimes it's direct evidence. sometimes it's circumstantial. sometimes it's the tools used. we've put together those facts and say what judgment can we make to attribute -- there's always a human being at the keyboard. that human being to a particular state actor. >> and the only other comment i would make is -- and then we'll compare the activity that we've observed with that which we have observed historically over time, looking for similarities, other connections we've previously been able to determine. >> are most of the attacks designed to glean information or to disrupt? >> well, again, the terminology attack versus gleaning information and to this point, it's either been, you know, disruption of a website, for example, but more commonly just
proloining information. as i indicated in my opening statement, though, i believe that the next push on the envelope here is going to be the manipulation or deletion of data which will, of course, compromise its integrity. >> going back to the russia/iran issue, and i know going back to russia and iran, and i know there are some issues that we can't talk about here, but russia's setting up a cyber command, how about china? >> to the best of my knowledge, the chinese have not yet gone to a configuration like the russians appeared to have with establishing a cyber com somewhat analogous to admiral rogers' command. but that's not to say that the chinese, as you know, have very
capable structure and apparatus in their current p.o.a. staff structure. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. quigley is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here and thank you for your service. i guess we hear most often of the high-profile hacks, cyber attacks on the u.s. government and major corporations. but as you know, the majority of businesses in the united states are small businesses. and we have thousands of very small local governments. they still contain in their computers extraordinarily sensitive client information or public information. yet as we can imagine, they often lack the sophistication, the capabilities, the expertise, the knowledge, the resources to meet this challenge. what, if anything, are we doing to reach out to those entities and try to help them meet this
challenge? >> it is absolutely a concern of every business in the united states from the traditional mom and pop up to medium size to large. and so we have, with the fbi is doing about it, is we recognize that that's a threat to everybody because our whole lives are connected to the internet. so in every community in this country, we have something called infraguard which is designed to offer a vehicle for those folks to learn from us best practices and warnings and indicators and for them to be able to share information that's useful to other small businesses and to the fbi. so i'd encourage small business folks, contact your local fbi office. we're in every community in this country. we have over 500 offices. join infraguard. it will make you smarter, and i hope in the process it will make your government smarter. >> i would just add as well the responsibility, and only because they're not represented here today, is the department of homeland security which does have a responsibility for
engaging at the state and local and private sector segment. >> and i appreciate that. but the lack of resources, you know, we hear so often that it's becoming cheaper and easier to hack and more expensive and difficult to defend. is there some other way besides this that we should begin to look at in terms of trying to balance the field between the resources a community bank has versus a major national bank? just as one example. >> one of the things that we need to continue to do better as a federal government is equip our state and local partners to investigate crimes that are digital in nature. and that's something that sheriffs and chiefs are hungry for. the fbi and the secret service are pushing out lots of training, pushing it out online so people from their desk in a police station have become a certified cyber investigator. the reason that matters so much,
there's never going to be enough federal agents to answer the bell of tens of thousands of small businesses who need help. and so we've got to equip our local partners to be able to offer that assistance. >> thank you so much, and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. i now yield to the chairman of the agriculture committee, mr. conaway. >> thanks, mr. chairman. you mentioned the dark web in your comments, and maybe mr. rogers may be able to better answer it, but could you give us a better description of what that means and how it's being used, and can you tell if information that's been obtained from somewhere else is actually being sold in that arena? >> jim, the dark web? >> the dark web is that portion of the internet that is not touched by any of your normal search engines. so you won't find it through google or yahoo! or bing or anything like that. you have to go looking for it. and so it requires specialized knowledge and often to operate the required specialized software because it is not
reachable and it is hidden, sort of a below-level, below the waterline. it's attractive to people who want to avoid any kind of scrutiny. so it's very attractive to criminals of all sorts. >> so have you seen it actually being used to sell information that's been stolen elsewhere? >> oh, certainly. we just took down a forum in the dark web that was being used to trade information -- personally identifiable information and skills. what the hackers have done is, hacking has become so sophisticated, it's become specialized now. so no one does all the different pieces that are necessary to steal your identity and then cash it out. and so it is on those places in the dark web that they meet each other, and someone who specializes in cashing out can talk to someone who specializes in stealing, and someone else who has a specialty in hiding things on a particular server can sell their services there. so it is a world full of criminals, which is why investigators for the fbi and our partners spend a whole lot of time there.
>> so do you have the right tools, the right -- i mean, is any of that activity that should be criminal that's not criminal yet, are there areas where we need to improve what you can do in that arena? >> i think by and large, we have the tools, congressman. and what we're trying to do is with our international partners, that's the key, because just finding the bad guys from the united states doesn't help us if the bad guys are all around the world. so the operation i just mentioned involved 20 countries simultaneously locking these guys up. so we send a message that you think you're hiding from us, but you're not hiding from us. the dark web is not a safe place to conduct criminal activity. so i think we have the tools and the fbi to get in there and find them. and what we're getting better at is building those international relationships. >> do you have the requisite authorities that you need? >> i believe so, yes. >> without getting into details, can you assure us whether it's a breach or attack at opm, that at this stage you've reversed to
try to put in appropriate protections elsewhere in the dot gov world about. >> i don't think that's something i'm best to speak about. >> and for nsa, we provided opm with 19 specific recommendations on how we would suggest changes to the network structure would help forestall future such activity, dhs in addition is identified, recommended improvements. i know opm is working their way through that and has a plan for how they're going to implement the steps they believe are necessary to ensure that they don't see a repeat. >> it's not your lane, but they can't be the only ones who had the problem. are those recommendations being shared beyond just opm? >> yes. so part of what we try to do and it really goes to representative sewell's point, every time we find ourselves with a major incident, we try to ensure that the insights we generate from that are share more broadly, both across the government with our private sector partners, because we're the first to acknowledge it's likely that others will attempt to replicate
the same kind of ttps, as we would say, the same techniques they're using again so we try to make sure we share information broadly. >> general clapper, is there authority anywhere for someone to require all these government agencies, opm, others to actually implement the recommendations or to set standards and then hold agency executives, secretaries of the various, you know, cabinet folks? is there somebody who can say you have to do this by a certain period of time? >> i can't quote you a chapter and verse. maybe others here can. but i think it just -- from the simple standpoint of institutional responsibility for tending to their networks -- >> yeah, they all work for the president, but it's a little -- you know, you wouldn't expect him to call down and make sure it happens. is there someone in the hierarchy of folks who work
close enough to the president that that can actually be required to happen? >> mike, can you help me with that? >> in the aftermath of opm, more broadly across the federal government, the white house set up a task force that's specifically designated a series of concrete steps that were required to be executed by memory as we had to finish it all within a 90-day time frame, every department across the government. i always try to remind people in the end, this is all about accountability and leadership. and how you prioritize in a tough environment where you're competing for limited resources. you've got 1,000 challenges you're trying to deal with as a leader, trying to ensure that you're sending a strong message to your organization and your subordinates about your expectations and what's acceptable and what's not acceptable and fundamental lapses in your ability to protect information that our citizens have shared with us from the government. >> i think you want to point to an institution in the government
that has that responsibility governmentwide, it's probably the office of management and budget. and, of course, appropriately, they have the power of the purse. >> thank you, gentleman. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. >> thank you, chair. i want to thank the panelists and the i.c. for your work this summer. we took down some planned isil attacks in america as cooperation in the community and the fbi made some very helpful arrests. you know, and that highlights, i think, you know, we have to be perfect. they pull off one attack, and it hurts people. it caused panic. so thank you for doing that. i want to follow up a little bit on what mr. conaway was saying. my question's for director comey. as a former prosecutor, i appreciate how hard it is to go after, you know, what we were kind of calling a paper case or a computer case.
it takes a lot of work and to figure out whose fingertips are on the keyboard causing these attacks is very difficult, especially when they're drawn across the globe. but do you think we could do a better job of making sure we hold these people responsible, show them to the world and deter more attacks? because right thousand it seems like we are almost entirely on a defensive posture. and i think you hinted that a lot of this is because of international challenges. we just struck an agreement with iran that involved china and russia and countries we don't normally agree with and work with. do you foresee an opportunity for a compact with nations to go after some of the cyber criminals -- cyber espionage i think is different, but cyber criminals that would better assist you to do your job? >> i do. i think the bad guys, through the use of the internet, have shrunk the world. they've made places that are tens of -- hundreds and thousands of miles apart,
next-door neighbors on the internet. so the fbi's strategy is shrink the world back in two ways. forward deploy fbi cyber agents around the world and also equip our partners around the world with technology and training and people so they can help us. because you're exactly right. the bad guys think it's a freebie that they're in their pajamas at their keyboard halfway around the world. they can steal anything in america. what we're trying to do is make them look over their shoulders. if they're in america at an fbi agent. but if they're halfway around the world and an agent from that country, and it's getting a lot better. countries from around the world see this. it can always be better, though. >> thank you, director. and with respect to what ranking member schiff was talking about earlier on the end-to-end encryption and the challenges there, i certainly would hate if we didn't do everything we could to prevent the next attack and know where it's going to come from. and the challenge that you have laid out, i think, you know, quite articulately over the past
year about going dark, as you mentioned, it has tension with some of the security and privacy values that we also have. how do you see us reconciling that? and you mentioned making sure that we work with industry. it's not just policy, but, you know, back at home in the bay area, you know, it sometimes seems like we've forgotten about september 11th and privacy is, you know, paramount concern. how can we reconcile the two as lawmakers and also with industry so that we don't look back and see that we could have prevented an attack, but we were dark? >> i think from the government side, our responsibility is to talk to folks and explain to them we're not maniacs. the fbi is not an alien force imposed upon the american people. we work for the american people. we work with the tools that they give us through congress. and so our job is to say hey,
look. our tools are being eroded. and we're not making it up. what has helped people, i think, in the isil threat is see that we're not making it up. there really is a conflict between two things we all care about deeply. and if we're going to protect people, we've got to figure out how to resolve that. but also not be arrogant and think well, the answer is, from the government, you should not look to the government for innovation, right? we can do a lot of great things, but technologically, innovation is not our thing. i think we've got to start by saying we have a problem. we all love this great country of yours. we have to come together to try to solve it. everybody who says it's too hard, i really believe we have not given this the shot that it deserves, and we're going to continue talking about it to try and demystify it and blow away this nonsense that we're at war with each other. this shouldn't be venom. we should all care about the same things and figure out how to solve it. >> and director, finally, if we were in a posture where if american companies -- or if most of the end-to-end encryption
that was being used by the bad guys ended up being overseas or companies that were overseas, what is the plan to make sure we can still protect communications that would threaten america? >> infrastructure completely overseas? we'd have to do it with our foreign partners. as i said, i think every civilized country, every country that cares about the rule of law thinks about this in the same way. all of us have to reconcile those two values. we have to do it as international community. i do think there's a reason, as i said earlier, that we should figure out how do we want to govern ourselves. but we also just don't want to chase the problem where we can't get to it. so we've got to figure out our piece and also work with our international partners. as a community of nations to figure out how to address this. >> thank you, director. and again, thank you all for the work you did this summer and continue to do. and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. miss ross lehtinen of florida. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. this morning the treasury department targeted four key
hamas leaders as financial facilitators for their terrorist acts and sanctioned them. one was saudi, one palestinian, one egyptian, one jordanian, as well as the front company that they used to transfer all of these dollars. and they were providing incredible financial support to individual terrorists as well as the groups they belonged to. and this highlights the international scope of fund-raising by these terrorist enterprise and the directing of military operations, the facilitating of transfer of funds all done within the cyber domain. were it not for that, they would not be able to move this money around and plan these attacks. we're talking tens of millions of dollars that were moved from iran to saudi arabia. a lot of money laundering. how confident are you in your individual agencies and working
together that you have the necessary resources to continue to track these terrorist activities that will be able to continue to sanction these individuals? they keep popping up as soon as we put these four guys down and put them out of business, four more will pop up. but we are able to track them thanks to the technology that we have. so how confident are you that we can continue this sort of like in the coast guard in my congressional district, we just have to get faster boats than the drug runners who are moving their drug shipment. >> i think we have -- thanks for the question, ma'am. i think we have a pretty good understanding of the financial mechanisms that are used. we could always do better, and we could always use more resources. but we certainly have put focus on the whole issue of threat finances. that's a whole new realm of intelligence that has evolved over the last decade or so.
i have a national intelligence manager for threat finance who is also the chief intelligence officer in the department of treasury. so we have very good linkage, i think, across the community using -- bringing to bear all the resources of the community, et cetera, to focus on this. but it is a constant challenge because as you've, i think, implied in bringing this up, this is the lifeblood of terrorist -- international terrorist activity. john, do you have a comment? >> i think we certainly have the tools. we are trying to make sure we utilize all of our various intelligence capabilities. but as jim mentioned before, we have ppd-28, and there are issues related to access to metadata, bulk collection, other types of things that i think it gets into this issue about what can we do for security purposes,
but what also might, in fact, impact on privacy, civil liberties issues. so the treasury department relies heavily on the intelligence community to make sure that they have a sufficient basis to designate these individuals, and as jim said, we're working very closely with them. >> is there something that we can do in terms of changing any laws that would allow you to do your job better in a way to bring down these terrorist organizations and the financial wherewithal? >> rather than respond off the tops of our head, why don't we take that for the record and give that some thought. >> thank you, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentle lady yields back. i recognize mr. turner for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, thank you all for being here and thank you for your diligence on an issue that is an incredibly important one, not only is it an issue as director clapper has said of us losing
information, but of the prospects that ultimately we could be looking at a change in the trend, as admiral rogers was saying, the manipulation of data or actually damaging of data and effectiveness. i want to ask two questions that relate to coordination. general stork, good to see you again. last time i saw you you were in my district at the air force base. thank you for being there. my concern on the first question on the issue of coordination is with respect to isil and following on the question, we have the director of the fbi, of course, who is trying to ensure that where we have isil who is using social media to recruit individuals, that he find those individuals in the united states and thwart their opportunity or their planned attacks. of course, obviously, with d.o.d., their goal is to find these individuals and bring
justice to them so we neutralize the threat as they continue to operate. the isil's use of personnel -- trying to target military personnel and also facilities through social media is of concern across the country and in my own community at the air force base, even public events have been canceled. but when it goes to bringing justice to that individual that's not in the united states, the director of the fbi is not involved, the d.o.d. is, and coordination is an issue. and i'd like, general, if you could speak a moment about the issue of the concern of our ability to bring justice to them and what our progress might be there. and the second issue is with respect to the office of personnel management. again, back to the national air and space intelligence center, i have thousands of individuals in my community at the air force base that are very concerned about the data breach, specifically with the sf-86 submission and the information that's contained in there. director clapper, you mentioned that there are personal effects
both on -- that could be damaging on financial information, actions that could be taken to them individually. it also includes their families. but you go to the next layer of then what happens with our national effectiveness as that information is compromised. and i'd like, if you could speak a moment on the issue of coordination of that you're all dependent on opm to protect the information of the people that allow your agencies to be effective and to function. general? >> congressman, the dia enterprise extends not just here in washington but down to the combat and commands to the service intelligence centers and out to the forces that are on the ground in respective aor. we coordinate daily on activities that we see across that entire spectrum of the enterprise. so we're in contact with the services. we're in contact with the combat and commands. we're in contact with our analysts here at our regional intel centers to make sure that we get the best characterization of the threat, the best
characterization of what they're capable of, and more importantly, if we can target them, how do we get that targeting data down to those forces that can, in a kinetic way, in a combat way, bring justice to these forces? to our adversary? and so i feel very comfortable that we are talking. so not only are we talking to those units below us, but we're also talking laterally. none of what i can do at dia can be done without the efforts of nsa or the things that are being done at cia. so we bring all sources of information together, package that to all our concealers from the national level all the way down to our forces on the ground, and then we hopefully can bring that targetable information that will strike those actors in a very kinetic way. >> then director clapper, on the issue of also personal risk, it also includes the professional risk, of the danger of this information being out. if you could speak to that for a
moment, knowing that there are thousands of employees who are very concerned about that breach. >> well, that's quite right, sir. there is potentially -- and i emphasize the word "potentially" -- great risk certainly in the case of intelligence people, particularly those assigned overseas, and in certain covered categories, that's a great concern of ours. what we have done through the auspices of the national counterintelligence security center is to do as much education as we possibly can on what the potential implications are, both, as i said, institutionally and individually. but at this point, we haven't seen, as we discussed before, actual evidence of the use of any of this data in a nefarious way. i wanted to ask director comey to comment as well.
>> i agree with director clapper's characterization. i worry, with our work force being a little confusing, that we -- i have talked to my work force about this, that we got everybody credit monitoring. that's actually not my worry about this information. i feel like that's buying people flood insurance when their neighborhood just burned down. the fire is what i'm worried about. it's not people's credit cards and their credit rating, given what we think the information was taken for. we see no indication of it being used to hit anybody's credit rating or credit accounts. i don't think that's the concern. at the same time, i don't want to put people completely at ease. as director clapper said, there's a significant counterintelligence threat that's associated with someone having this information, a nation state. >> the gentleman from ohio, dr. winstrop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here with us today. you know, we talk a lot about china, russia, north korea, iran, nonstate actors, and we're
concerned with attacks in nesting and the dark web, et cetera. how much of what we're seeing is taking place from within the united states? are we having bad actors within the united states that are participating in attacks and nesting and on the dark web? >> well, we have our fair share of criminals, and criminals increasingly operate online because that's where our lives are. i think that's where children play. that's where we bank. that's where our health care is. and so people want to hurt kids, that's where they're operating. then they're often sharing images with each other on the dark web, hoping that we won't be able to find it, that they'll use the onion rueter to hide their communications. we see fraudsters of all kinds, whether it's health care or just trying to steal your banking transactions, trying to operate in a way that we can't see. and so they think if they go to the dark web, the hidden layers of the internet, that they can hide from us. they're kidding themselves because of the effort that's been put in by all of us in the
government over the last five years or so that they are out of our view. but it's a big feature of criminal activity in the united states. >> from a government standpoint and international relations in coming together and trying to combat cyber, do we have full confidence in working with the five eyes? beyond that, where do you think we should go or where are we going in that arena? >> i think i speak for my colleagues on this panel. we have full confidence in the five is. we are very closely latched up when it comes to all matters cyber, counterterrorism, counterintelligence and criminal. that's a fabulous relationship. it's as healthy as it's been for 70 years. and increasingly, as i said, all states that care about the rule of law are engaged on this. where we have problems is with certain states, russia, in particular, where it's very hard for us to get cooperation and get the actors apprehended, and so we have to hope to grab them when they leave the country and
travel. the good news is all of the successful cyber criminals have lots of dough, and they want to go on vacation. and that's where with our partners, we grab them up. >> does anyone think there is a potential for a geneva convention-type of arrangement to be made? because i consider the cyber world to be a world war taking place right now each and every day. is there a potential for a set of international rules, even amongst some of the people that we consider to be our adversaries? >> well, yes, there's a potential for it, and one would hope that -- and of course, it took many, many years for the geneva conventions to evolve, and i suspect it probably will in this case as well. but i think the hope is that there could be established some international norms governing behavior, particularly what civilized nation states will do about criminal behavior and the use of the internet for
terrorist purposes. and there are many, many countries that have an interest in that. >> how do you suggest we begin that process? >> well, certainly the public discourse, i think, is useful. it is certainly a topic within intelligence circles that we discuss with our friends and allies particularly the five is. so there is a growing body of interest in this. but again, i hark back to we're from the intelligence realm, and this really is a policy issue that's kind of over our labor grade. >> well, that answers my question. that's what i was asking. one other question, has north korea conducted tcyber attacks n u.s. companies since sony? >> your question is did they? >> have they? have they conducted any that we're aware of since -- >> since sony?
not that i'm aware of. mike? >> we haven't seen any offensive destructive actions directed against the u.s. corporate sector by the north koreans since the sony incident. >> any conjecture -- is there anything that -- and you don't have to go into detail -- but did america act in any way that maybe has been a deterrent for them to act again? >> i certainly hope that's the case. the president came out very publicly and talked -- acknowledged the act, attributed the act and then talked about what we were going to do in response to it and then talked about and were we to see continued activity along these lines, we will take additional action potentially at the time and place of our choosing. i hope that's been effective. i would argue your question was narrowly focused against activity against the united states. i would argue i have watched them do other offensive actions in the post-sony environment. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.
the gentleman from utah, mr. stewart is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and gentlemen, thank you for what you do. if there's anyone who's going to save our nation from future chaos, it's the work of you and your agencies taken together. i have great respect for all of you. i consider some of you friends. mr. brennan, i've spent a lot of time with some of your guys around the world in the last six months, and they are heroes. admiral, you and i spent time together last week, and thank you for your support there. i have a question, and i want to get to that, but before i do, director clapper, you've said some things that i don't understand. and i hope you can clarify for me, if you could. and that is coming back to the opm breach, and you said it's not an attack. and i guess i would ask you to clarify that. and if i could elaborate just quickly, i understand there may be a technical definition. but there's a couple things that trouble me. one is that we say that we have no evidence of nefarious activity because of that, but we don't know that. if someone is being blackmailed because of this information
that's been taken, we wouldn't know that yet. if someone's cover had been revealed because of the -- you know, this information being available, we wouldn't know that yet, so we don't really know what has been the effect of this being taken. and can you define for me what is an attack, and what isn't -- or doesn't meet that definition? because this seems to me like it would be. >> my working definition of whether it's an attack or not, and my characterization of it not being an attack in that there was no destruction or data or manipulation of data. it was simply stolen. so that -- that's a passive intelligence collection activity. just as we do. >> well, and it seems to me, sir -- >> and to your other question is, you know, we don't know what could be going on. that's quite true. all i'm saying is there's been no evidence surfaced to this point of the use of this data in a nefarious way either against
individuals or institutionally. that's not to say we're not mindful of that and that we're not watching for it. >> and i'm sure that you are. i do think that it seems to minimize the gravity of this event by characterizing it, not an attack, and saying at this point we are not aware of any nefarious activity when there very well could be. and many of us view this as simply more than just data mining. but if i could go on to my question, and i need to set this out very quickly because i really would appreciate your response. national security is a matter of cost benefit analysis. you have nation states that say here are our ambitions. here are our interests, our goals. and on the other hand, they have to, you know, kind of measure the cost of reaching those goals or defending those interests. what are the risks or what are the obstacle ts that they may overcome in doing that? and it seems to we haven't weighted the scales on the side of our adversaries in making them know and understand the risks and the costs. and i think the effect of that,
we have weakened the idea of deterrence or at least maybe i don't understand the idea of deterrence. and it seems to me that when we see these attacks, as we have in the recent past, some of them associated with nation states, but they seem to act with impunity. and can you help me understand, what is our policy regarding deterrence? and i know that there's some regards to that that you wouldn't want to talk about, but it seems to me if we can be more open about how we will respond, that that could act as more of a deterrence, and i'm not sure that we've done a very good job of doing that yet. >> personally, this is not a company policy, this is my own view, that until such time as we do achieve or create both the substance and the mindset of deterrence, that this sort of thing is going to continue. the opm breach, and as admiral
rogers has stated on more than one occasion, this is not a one-off, and we will continue to see this until we create both the substance and the psychology of deterrence. >> well, i couldn't agree with you more. i've editorialized about this a number of times, and it just seems that we enhance our security, if we can deter rather than just monitor and take action after the attack. i know there's a fine line you have to tread there because you don't want to reveal our capabilities. you don't want to, you know, reveal how we track and in some cases how we may deter or we may, you know, retribution. but i'm hoping you agree with me -- and director, it seems like you are -- that if we could be more open and more clear about our deterrence policy, that that would benefit us. >> those are policy issues. and certainly as an intel guy, i would be an advocate for that. but ultimately, that's a policy call. >> i understand that. and in five seconds, anyone else
on the panel like to address the deterrence? okay. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. carson is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think we all understand that we face serious threats as it relates to hacking in the cyberspa cyberspace. but we also are dealing with a larger cve strategy and the distribution of propaganda and the radicalization of americans really using online platforms. so i think it's obvious that we have some very challenging concerns about the constitutionality of protected free speech. my first question would be how effective are these online radicalization efforts domestically? are there particular subsets of our society that are most greatly influenced? outside of -- secondly, outside of encouraging voluntary
compliance by google, facebook, twitter and others, what authorities do you guys have to forcibly remove propaganda and other recruiting materials? and what authorities could congress empower you with to help in those efforts? >> i think i can respond to that, mr. carson. first of all, they are, as we've seen over the last six to nine months, these recruitment efforts using social media are highly effective. isil started investing in it about 12 to 15 months ago. and the fruit of that was seen with all of the people we had to arrest to stop plots late this spring and this summer because social media works. whether you're selling sneakers or selling the poison of the so-called islamic state. so it works. the, in my experience, the social media companies have been highly responsible and responsive in trying to take down media that is offensive and that is related to a terrorist group. the challenge of social media is it's the most complicated spider
web in the world. and so you end up having a hard time finding it. and then when you find it and shut it down, it chases to some other place. so it is an enormous problem. and i don't have a simple answer to it. but i do want to say they have been responsive and responsible in my experience. the people who respond to it are troubled minds. people seeking meaning in their lives and folks seek meaning in all different kinds of ways. unfortunately, there's an audience for this kind of poison, that they'll find meaning in the ultimate battle at the end of times through the islamic state. that's craziness, but troubled souls -- and we see people who have problems with alcohol or problems with their families or problems with the law and are seeking orientation in their life are responsive to this kind of stuff. the fbi's piece in that is trying to do two things at once. first send a strong message of deterrence. that this is not a way to find meaning in your life. this is a way to find years, maybe decades, in a federal prison. so that ought to factor into people's consideration.
and to equip police officers and community service providers and parents with the markers of radicalization. we've gone back through every case we've ever seen and developed a matrix of these are the things that are indicators of that journey, and we're trying to equip people with that so they can see it and help reorient the person. >> has the citizen as cadmy been active in increasing awareness or even more community engagement as it relates to a larger cve strategy? >> yes. citizen as cadmy is a part of every fbi field office where we invite community leaders to come in, learn about the work we do, and then go out into the community armed with an understanding of the challenges we face. and they're a key part of that. because nobody wants to see these people turn to the dark side in that way. and so our goal, again, we have to be careful because we care deeply, as everybody in this room does about the first amendment. so we don't want to have the fbi in the business of trying to tell people, here's the true meaning of islam. we should be nowhere near that.
we want to equip the good people of the united states with an understanding of the markers of radicalization so they can have those conversations. >> that's an important work, and we appreciate the work that the bureau does and the rest of the agencies represented here. i do want to say, though, director, respectfully, and i think you know this, i don't have to say it, when we talk about radicalization, islam does not have a monopoly on radicalization or even cultlike activity. there are so-called christian group that are purporting racial mythologies that are just as destructive in the midwest. when i worked at the fusion center, a lot of the calls that we got dealt with white supremacist groups claiming to represent christianity. judism is represented as well and other groups. i think that in our larger cve effort, perhaps we can educate the public that islam does not have a monopoly on radicalization, but we appreciate what you guys do. >> thank you. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. pompeo is recognized for
five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general clapper, good portions of the patriot act expire next year, is that right? tell me what efforts the intelligence community has put in place. we struggled mightily with section 215 and others to get put in place in a way that was meaningful and helpful and allowed you to perform your functions. tell me what efforts that you all are engaged in, contemplating what happens if those provisions do expire and they're not renewed, or any efforts you're engaged in to -- you or the administration are engaged in -- ensuring that those provisions do not come off the books. >> i guess the best response would be to take that one, too, as to what the workarounds might be if it totally expires. i guess, you know, the hope is
that they all won't, and we'll have to figure out workarounds. but i guess i don't think we're prepared here to respond directly to the question, so we'll get that for you. >> i just raise it. it seems like a long ways away, the middle of next year will be here awfully quickly. we have had enormous struggles legislatively to get these things accomplished. and i want all the members of this committee and all of you to know that there are a bunch of us determined to make sure that these provisions aren itted if they need to be modified in some way to update and make them consistent with what we're trying to achieve today, but we should not wait until may to begin thinking about what the impacts are. >> you're quite right, sir. and i appreciate your bringing this up. and i'd like to give that a serious response. so we'll get back to you. >> thank you. this is for anyone, but i'll start with director clapper. we've been in negotiations that are now complete with iran. we have a review act that congress -- that the house is considering today. can you tell me what the iranian behavior has been in the cyber
world during these discussions? have there been any noticeable changes either as the negotiations continue came to fruition or where we sit today? >> mike, why don't you -- >> we have publicly acknowledged if you step back a little bit in the 2012/2013 time frame, we were seeing significant iranian activity against the u.s. financial sector, trying to take down financial websites, flowing out of '13 as the negotiations kicked in in many ways, we saw less activity directed directly against us, but i would remind people, i have not seen the iranians step back from their commitment to cyber as a tool, and we see it being used against a variety of actors in the gulf and in the region, that they continue to be fully committed to how can they use this capability to achieve a broader sense of national objectives. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut,
mr. himes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank all of you for your commitment and time this morning. i want to return to a theme, and that's just a couple of questions related to clarity around international norms in the cyber realm. the first question, i guess i directed at mr. clapper. there is some debate as to whether currently existing international treaties and international law, laws of war, are perhaps sufficient to provide the clarity that you need operationally. and i understand there's a policy question here, but i'm asking an operational question, which is do you think that that's true, or do you see the cyber realm as distinct enough from the territorial or other realms such that it would be operationally helpful to have specific clarity around laws and norms in the cyber realm? >> well, i'll offer an opinion, and that's all. because it is, as you say, a policy issue. i do think that there needs to
be norms that are specifically tailored for the cyber domain. it's, to me, at least, somewhat analogous to the chemical warfare conventions. that it has some technical aspects that i think need for them to be meaningful and effective, need to be adapted. perhaps drawing on some of the principles of what we now know is international norms in other realms, but i do think there needs to be some tailoring. mike, you want to -- >> i would echo that. i think that there are mechanisms out there and frameworks that we can draw on. there's certainly some differences within the cyber arena, and i'm the first to acknowledge that. i think the important point you raise is clearly we still do not have enough clarity. and clarity, particularly if i put on my operational role as
cyber command, clarity is everything to me because that enables -- that helps enable speed of response, help generate better outcomes. so i think it's important for us as a nation, and i would argue more internationally to come to a sense of so what are these terms? what are these definitions? what is a framework that enables us to quickly decide what's acceptable, unacceptable and what's an acceptable response? because currently the environment we're all in right now, i don't think anyone is satisfied with the environment we find ourselves in right now. >> thank you. so last question is, i guess, where are we? is this an effort to which your respective organizations are actually contributing significant resources, prioritizing, and obviously there's groups that aren't represented here like the state department. is there something that you see in the u.s. government as a priority? >> well, it's clearly a matter of discussion in the interagency.
and i think you're quite right, the state department, probably the better institution to speak to than intelligence. >> any other observations, comments? okay. admiral? >> i would just say, clearly the i.c. participates in those discussions. and we get the opportunity to provide a viewpoint and perspective. we try to back that up based on the insights and the data we generate, which is what the expectation for us as intelligence professionals. i think, you know, clearly we are all frustrated that this is taking us longer than we would all like. but i would not want anyone to believe it is not because of a lack of effort, and it's not because of a lack of recognition that this is a set of issues that fundamentally need to be addressed. >> chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i want to thank the panel today. thank you for being here. thank you for being willing to testify in public.
we will have questions that we'll submit for the record. and i think director clapper, there's a couple questions that may have to be answered in a classified setting, but we look forward to receiving those. i'd like to remind members that they have ten legislative days to submit questions for the record. before we adjourn, i'd like to just quickly recognize lynn westmoreland. >> thank you, chairman. and i want to thank director clapper and director brennan and admiral rogers for your participation in a georgia regents university, the cyber symposium that they are putting on in augusta, georgia, as you know, the nsa facility is there and expanding. and i know that director clapper and director brennan have both stated as well as admiral rogers about the need for young talent to get involved in this field. i want to thank the director for sending miss o'sullivan down to
speak this year. we were hoping that we could get you, but we're glad to have miss o'sullivan and the same thing -- >> you're getting a better speaker. >> yeah. and sending him. thank you roache. thank you all. and thank you for your support in realizing that what we're doing is trying to get young talent to recognize the importance of our cyber security. so thank you very much. >> thank you. once again, thank you, gentlemen, and the hearing is now adjourned.
testimony from heads the nation's intelligence agencies at this hearing. if you missed any of it, you can go to our website, cspan dot org and you will be able to watch it again along with other hearings and events on cyber security. we have more on this as the hill reports this morning silicone valley is urging the government to propose a proposed solution in the so-called going dark problem, in which they are worried criminals will use -- congressman schiff of california is the top democratic on the house intelligence committee.
we heard from him. he said he received that message when he met with top officials from facebook, google and twitter last week. he mentioned during his remarks during the national security summit. you can also watch that event which we had earlier today on this network on our website at cspan.org. both the house and the senate are considering the iran nuclear agreement today in the house. the house voting on threery resolutions and bills. one that says the 60-day approval period hasn't started since the president hasn't made congress aware of the side deals. live coverage of the house will begin in just a couple of moments as they gavel in at noon eastern. you will be able to watch the house on cspan. over in the senate they continue the disprofl regarding the iran agreement. democrats and republicans
altering the debate an hour at a time. a vote is expected at 3:45 eastern. you can see the senate live on our companion network cspan 2. we have more on the iran nuclear agreement as the house armed services committee will look at the impact on missile defense and nonproliferation. live coverage of that in about two hours, 2:00 p.m. eastern on cspan 3. coming up next, the iran nuclear deal, also a topic on today's washington journal as well as other issues in the news. we are back with congressman martha mixaly of arizona. she sits on the homeland security panel, and a retired air force colonel. let's start with the iran nuclear agreement. there is going to be three votes. the first one is a resolution indicating that president obama did not meet his obligations to send all relevant documents to
congress. >> i asked secretary kerry in a closed door meeting whether he collide with all the elements of the law that we passed that president obama sign, which includes all the pending agreements, all the documents, all side deals and everything. and he said yes. but we have since discovered their side deals between iran and the iaea that we have not seen in congress. that's not complying with the law. this is a pretty straightforward vote. we believe they have not complied with the launch i'm going to be voting yes on that. >> iaea says that's standard operating procedure that they never disclose those -- >> but there is nothing standard with the p5+1 with iran, the larger state sponsor of terror, there is nothing standard about the way the whole thing went about. so to have this massive negotiation with the passion 5 plus 1 in iran related to their nuclear capability and then
somehow to still allow a side deal to happen -- this isn't like the uae. this isn't like some other western country working with the iaea. this is a state sponsored terror that we are trying to stop and dismantle the capability to have a nuclear weapon. and we need to make sure that we understand what their previous military capabilities are. that's what some of the side deals relate to, pmd, possible military dimensions. if we are starting from a starting point that says we want to make sure we have very intrusive inspections, make sure we have good oversight, we want to know when whether you have cheated or not. one thing to know is whether they have cheated in the past. one thing we are pretty sure of is that they have cheated in the past. both the intel residence is committee and the iaea have a list of scientists, documents, and sites that they have been trying to get access to as part of the additional protocol of the nonproliferation treaty for
iran to fess up and provide access to those sign tests, sites, and documents so we know exactly what they have done in the past. as part this negotiation for the additional protocol, the iaea has worked out some deal with iran related to how they are going to create that waysline and fess up to the past. but we don't have access to that. we don't have oversight to that. again, i specifically asked secretary kerry in a closed-door meeting whether the list of scientists, sites, and documents that we knew we wanted to get access to, both our intelligence committee and the iaea, whether that has shrunk in the final agreement and how many people have been removed from that list, how many sites have been removed from that list, how many documents have been removed from that list. and he said he really couldn't answer that question because he hasn't seen the final list. that's troubling to me. i think if we are going to have some sort of deal that provides the transparency and the oversight and the inspections that this administration talks about, we've at least got to
have a clean slate and new how they have cheated in the past so we have baseline. that's what niece side deals are related to. if we can't see those and don't have oversight of those then we don't know what to look for going forward. >> the administration says they have held closed door meetings with members of congress to let you know. >> yep. >> and tell you what's in these so-called side deeld. have you attended. >> i've been in closed door meetings with them. the last one, which was several hours long, they said they didn't they had not seen the side deals, didn't know what the side deals were, didn't know what was on that list. perhaps they have since met -- but the administration said they hadn't seen them either. we are simply asking to have the oversight and trant parentsy of this whole deal to make sure that the possible military dimensions in the past are known so we can determine whether they are cheating in the future. i think that's a reasonable request. in the law that president obama
sign it specifically lists that side deals need to be submitted to congress in order to start the 60-day clock. and they haven't. we are just asking for those deals. >> that's the first vote that will happen tomorrow. a second and third vote, a bill blocking president obama blocking sanctions again iran. >> i will be voting for the bill that prevents president obama from lifting the sanctions and i will be voting against the deal. >> and you are voting against the overall deal. why? >> there is a lot of reasons. let me get into a few of them. i'm sure the callers will have questions of as well. ig i was in the military of 26 years. i think the false idea that it's either this deal or law is flawed. that is flawed logic. it is not true. there is a whole lot of options that we have in order to deal with this state sponsor of terror and to stop them from having a nuclear weapon. and the last people that want to have military action are those
in the military and those that have seen the horrors of war. that's really a false choice first of all. when you look at the behavior of iran as a the largest state sponsor of terror that continues to export terror through hezbollah, hamas, other proxy capabilities, the can you describe force. i was just over in israel a few weeks ago. i was seeing the impact that the rockets that come over from the gaza strip going as far as tel aviv last summer, trying to murder innocent civilians, and the capabilities that they have, that they have to try and deal with where individuals in israel have between seven and 30 seconds to get to shelter. i mean, this is like normal life for them. it's like, okay, school children, okay, he would people you have to run to a bombsheller the because hamas, this terrorist organization that's funded by iran is continuing to, you know, to conduct terrorist activities and against civilians. and so the money that will flow
to iran from this agreement is going to continue to boost up iran's terrorist activities across the region, create instability. and even obama admitted himself a few weeks ago that some of the money that they would get in this terrorist relief -- or in this sanctions relief would actually flow to those organizations. that is going to detablize the region. it's going to put our strong ally, israel, at risk. and in a very -- in conventional ways as well. but iran has also continued to say death to america, death to israel. they are destabilizing the middle east against our national interests. and none of these other activities are addressed first of all. so i'm very concerned about that element. look, i appreciate the diplomatic effort that the administration has made. i do believe that when it comes to the known enrichment sites that there are some strong looks like inspection and oversight elements of this agreement. so i appreciate the work that was put in to get to that. but what we have is a patient
path to the bomb by iran. that if they actually comply with this agreement and do everything that it says they should do, then in about 13 years they are going to have the ability to have unlimited number of centrifuges, unlimited. the ayatollah says he wants 190,000. but hey if they want half a million or a million, they can have as many as they want in about 13 years. that might seem like a long time to some of the listeners here. but think about that. 13 years ago was actually after 9/11, which we are about to be remembering this week. that is a short period of time in the history of the middle east. they have this patient path to the bomb if they don't cheat. then, they could cheat, and they have cheated, and in it's their dna to cheat. so if they do cheat, and we think that they are doing something at a location that is not one of the ones that are covered under the intrusive inspections, then they get 24 days to appeal any requests for us to be able to go take a look and inspect. we are not talking about areas
that just have to have a large footprint for enriching uranium. and the administration talks about how they should be able to test that each from the soil samples. we're talking about the third piece of how you get a nuclear weapon, the weaponization. you need a delivery vehicle, the enrichment capability and the weaponization of it. the weaponization can happen in a room of this size. that is much more challenging. if we send something to an intelligence committee and we want to inspect it they have got 24 days to appeal it. there is a lot at stake here. i think we could have gotten a better and stronger deal, but this administration wanted it so bad that we gave up some things, especially in the final weeks of the deal. in the final weeks of the deal as a surprise to everybody this administration agreed to lift the icbm and the arms embargo on iran. the week before that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was testifying saying
under no circumstances should we relieve those things. icbm stands for intercontinental. there is no reason to need an icbm unless you want to put a weapon on it. but we are allowing them that capability. there are more elements, but i'll wait to hear from the callers. >> they are lining up. lloyd, in washington, a democrat. you are on the air. >> thank you. given the nuclear power is essential to the argument for iran, could we direct it to nuclear fuels like thor yum, or integral fast reactors or breeder rektors typically? and that would take the uranium enrichment off the table. >> i am not a nuclear physicist.
but i think there are plenty of ways to allow power for the people. the caller suggests one of them. but they have the ability under this deal to very quickly after 13 years break out with a very significant nuclear infrastructure. i mean one of the additional challenges is again, the administration said they wanted to initially dismantle the nuclear infrastructure. they have moved the goal post. what we are left with is a significant nuclear infrastructure. that if they comply with the deal under the legitimacy of the united states and world powers they actually could break out with that infrastructure and much more sophisticated centrifuge capabilities in 13 years if they don't change. >> the white house is saying right now they have the capability to break out in two to three months. under this deal, this is a tweet sent out from the white house that with the deal all four pathways to bomb are blocked. >> i appreciate their perspective but they are again flawed in their logic because
what we have under this deal is we -- i appreciate that they came to the table. let me just say. that i appreciate that the sanctions that we've been putting on iran have brought them to the place where they came to the table. we know that iran, because of the sanctions, is cash strapped right now. and i think it's important for your listeners to understand that the serious sanctions have really cranked up in the financial industry and the oil industry in the last 18 months. >> eve though we feel like we have been talking about sanctions for defrl decades now on iran, the real sanctions that have been cranking up the pressure and putting them in a cash strapped situation have only been in force during the last 18 months f. we use all elements of our national power, which includes, diplomat i go, economic, keep the sanctions in place, keep cranking up those sanctions as well as having a serious, legitimate left the military force. i'm not saying we should use
military force, but as someone who spent over 30 years in national security you can only deter somebody from taking certain action if they think there is a credible military threat. in this case, the administration didn't have a credible threat. the iranians didn't believe them when they said all options were on the table. i think we need to be using our power as the leader. free world to crank up that power and get a legitimate deal. >> another caller. >> caller: can you hear me all right? >> we can. >> caller: all right. well, i was curious, congresswoman. i agreed with your -- respectfully disagree with your comments. but i'm not going to get into the disagreement. i would like to actually ask you a question regarding the iran deal. and that is how do you think this will affect the -- >> we are going to move on. chris call, philadelphia, republican. hi, chris call.
>> caller: good morning, cspan. and thank you representative mcfally for standing up for america and for our safety and security. i find it very strange that it seems we have a party policy -- politics going on concerning the existence of america. this is -- i love israel. this is not just about israel. >> right. >> caller: this regime wants israel off the map and america off the map. we have not done anything in this agreement to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons. at all. like we said, at best, in ten years or whatever, they would have the bomb and can very well use it. and for all of the people that continue to say oh, well, we don't want to go to war if there's a war. wake up. you are going to have to go to war whether you like it or not. if somebody slaps new the face, what are you going to say, i'm
not going to hit you back because i don't want to fight? >> congresswoman, do you agree? >> i think the trobling part of the false narrative that the obama administration, it's either this deal or war. if you actually study the deal and look at the implications of it and you fast forward to where this would end up in 10 to 13 years if they comply, or sooner if they cheat -- i mean, actually, this guarantees, potentially that we are going to have military act. it's not this deal, it's almost like this deal and war. and for our israeli partners, again, when we were over there talking to them, across the board, politically, and to include netanyahu and also the opposition leader, herzog, who wakes up every day trying to replace netanyahu. they are in lock step agreement that this is a bad deal because this is an existential threat to israel. they are in total agreement and confused as to why if obama administration would come up with this deal.
their respond is we are already at war. hezbollah is stockpiling hundreds of thousands rockets on the border with neb none. proxy fought or funned by iran. sole mainy, the head of the can you describe force, let me talk about him. he is the head of their external operations, exporting terror around the region, impacting israel and others. we have 500 american soldiers at least who were killed in iraq because of these vehicle born improvised explosive devices that were exported from iran under his force with the sole purpose to kill americans. we have 500 americans who no longer have their loved one because of the can you describe force in iran killing and wounding americans. this is blood on their hands. under this deal, he comes off the sanctions list. i mean, this is ridiculous, while he is continuing to be running their terrorist organization overseas.
again, according to israel, the war is already going on around them. and it's going to become more destabilized and these organizations are going to have more weapons when we have an influx of cash, which we think will be up to around $700 billion over the next ten years. that's a significant amount of cash for them to be continuing to increase their capabilities to these proxy organizationless like hamas and hezbollah. but also to build their conventional capability. let's talk about that for a second. with the releasing of the arms embargo and the influx of cash they have, iran is going to be able to now import more conventional arms to increase air defenses, increase their capabilities in naval forces. and should we have to later take some sort of military option in order to go after their nuclear capability it's going to be far more dangerous for americans because of their air defense capabilities, naval capabilities. it's going to be more dangerous. we are going to lose more american lives. we have them exactly where we
want them. they are cash strapped. we have intelligencer in bickering over which money should go where in their overseas operations and other things. we need to continue to crank up that pressure and we need to ensure we get a better deal that does simple things like provide the possible military dmengs dimensions from the past so we know exactly what they have done to cheat, dismantles their nuclear infrastructure, and certainly doesn't release the arms embargo and the icbm embargo. >> is that realistic when it looks like president obama has the numbers he needs in the senate to filibuster. and even if it goes ford, he can veto it. >> i think it's incredibly unfortunate that democrats in the senate are not going to even allow a debate. you hear the callers coming in on both sides. this is something the american people are dialed in about. when we were back in our districts in august, i met with people all over our community that have different perspectives on this. america deserve as debate on this issue before a vote.
and the fact they would use a procedure tool when we know we have the majority of the senate actually wants to disapprove this and speak on behalf of the american people. but that they would use a procedural tool in order to stop it from even going to a debate and coming to a vote, that -- i think that is just really flawed and bad leadership. it is very unfortunately. >> hillary clinton yesterday in washington came out in support of the iran nuclear deal. but she did not take the military option off the table. listen. >> if we were to reject this agreement, iran would be poised to get nearly everything at once without giving up a thing. no restrictions on their nuclear program. no real warning if tehran suddenly rushes toward a bomb. and the international sanctions regime would fall apart. so no more economic consequences for iran either. those of us who have been out there on the diplomatic front lines know that diplomacy is not the pursuit of perfection. it's the balancing of risk.
and on balance, the far riskier course right now would be to walk away. great powers can't just junk agreements and expect the rest of the world to go along with us. we need to be reasonable and consistent, and we need to keep our word, especially when we're trying to lead a coalition. that's how we'll make this and future deals work. but it's not enough just to say yes to this deal. of course it isn't. we have to say yes, and -- yes, and we will enforce it with vigor and vigilance. yes, and we will embed it in a broader strategy to confront iran's bad behavior in the region. yes, and we will begin from day one to set the conditions so iran knows it will never be able to get a nuclear weapon. not during the term of the
agreement, not after, not ever. >> congresswoman, your reaction? >> well, again, the diplomacy is one element of our national power that we need to be using. and i think the idea that she mentioned about where walking away if we reject this deal -- we are not walking away. as a coequal branch of the government i think it's important for people to be reminded of our history. over 200 times in our history, when the u.s. has neshlt nerlg negotiated as agreement, a treato or some other agreement, in kong to be able to approve and provide oversight with that has said we are okay with these parts but we have issues with the other parts. we are asking for the following restrictions, changes, updates and we want you to go back to the table and we'll support this agreement under the following conditions. that happened 200 times in our history. and often in multilateral negotiations that had upwards on the conventional forces in
europe treaty, over 22 members. one other related to chemical weapons, 87 members. we can do this. this is what leadership means. and america is supposed to lead. the fact we are hearing we can't go back to the table, that's not possible. it has happened 200 times in our history. we are saying don't walk away. but as a coequal branch of the government we are going to demand different elements be included in this agreement for it to be a good agreement. then america using its diplomacy needs to lead, not just with iran but with our partners in the negotiations say okay this is where we are at. we are not going to approve this unless we get the following changing to it. and the idea that all of the sanctions are going to crumble is not true as well. we have what's called u.s. secondary sanctions: so our european partners are going to have to choose. if we were to demand that we sweeten this deal, make it better, they would have to choose whether they want to do business with iran or want to do business with america when it comes to the banking system and
the oil industry. and so they will have to make that choice. we have had meetings with some of them who said these will be difficult choices but in the end they would have to choose to stick with america. russia and china are going to do what they are going to do. but america is supposed to lead. that's what we should be doing in this situation. >> darryl next in detroit. hi darryl. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: i have three points i would like to make. the first point is for years now we have been putting sanctions on iran and -- $150 billion so we get them to the table. and we have done that. and now we have a treaty in hand. a rose by any other name is still a rose. that brings up two problems. one, if this treaty isn't passed, what we'll end up having is we'll have a north korea in the middle east. okay? i'd also like to say that this treaty will slow down two
countries. obviously, it will slow down iran for ten years. but it will also slow down israel. because they are the ones that have 100-plus nuclear weapons. and they cannot allow iran to develop a nuclear weapon, even one. so that is really where the potential war s. i think this treaty is important, it's good, and it must be passed. thank you very much. >> i appreciate your perspective. you keep calling it a treaty, which is interesting because the administration is not calling it a treaty f. it was a treaty, then in order for it to go into force the administration would need two thirds of the senate to actually approve it n. this case actually he has passed it and moved directly to the u.n. security council without even providing for the 60 days for if congress, the house and senate to have an up or down vote on it. now it locks like his own allies are not going to allow that to happen in the senate. if it looks like a treaty and smells like a treaty we might
want to treat it like a treaty. which i think is an important element. related to the arms race in the middle east. this is one of the concerns that many of us have related to other sar ab countries in the middle east. there is a deepening shia/sunni divide happening in the middle east. we're seeing it all over the place. this is a centuries long battle but the fisures are getting deeper and deeper and stakes are getting higher. when you see some of the sunni allies, saudi arabia and others, even as turkey is looking on, and they see this desire of a hedge mon from iran that is powerful in the region, that is desiring to be more powerful that is now going to have this inplucks of cash and the potential to have a nuclear capability, they are not going to want to see that happen without having to be able to counterbalance it. so we can expect to potentially see an arms race going on in the middle east just between other nations. not having anything to do with
israel. whether that's saudi arabia, turkey and others choosing to now have the capability because they feel like they need to get their own back. and some of the arab allies said they thought in the past america had their back. now they are not sure about that and they are feeling they have to go their own way. >> next to doris in new york, a republican. >> caller: hello. i have changed to be a republican, by the way. i was a democrat. i am no longer because i want to thank you, representative, for coming out and saying what is so obvious to everyone. and i want to thank you for your service. you're smart. we need people like you to speak out against this iran deal. if they get their sanctions released -- and that's all they really want -- >> uh-huh. >> caller: they want the money
to fund hezbollah, et cetera, that they have been doing -- in syria, they have always been doing this, for years. and i just want to thank you for coming out and so eloquently trying to defend some normalcy here. i am 100% not in favor of this deal because of all the things that you said. >> okay, so, doris, i want to give the congresswoman a chance then to tell others about your background a little bit before you came to congress. >> sure. so i was in the military for 26 years. left home at the age of 18 to go off to the air force academy. tremendous edition there, sent me to harvard out of the air force act me. i was in the right place at the right time when congress repealed the law that restricted females from being fighter
pilots. became the first woman to demand a fighter squadron in come bachlt i have 325 combat hours. retired as a colonel. and various assignments out of the cockpit in senior positions at the operational level. six deployments to the middle east. i know this area quite well. they sent me off to get a second master's degree. in my last assignment i was running counterterrorism operations and all of our military operation at u.s. africa command on the continent of africa. and then after retirement i was serving as a professor in germany. it was important after the soviet union collapsed to help our partner nations transition to democracy. i've been doing national security from the cockpit up to senior levels for about 30 years now. >> congresswoman is serving in his first time elected in 2014, represent's arizona's second district, defeating democrat ron
barber narrowly for that see. i want to ask you about the future of females in military combat. here's an article. >> i tell you, since i've been in the military, since 1994, when they finally opened up fighters to women -- well, in 1993. they were hearing all sorts of arguments about why women couldn't do certain things or shouldn't do certain things. i have been living this flawed emotional logic my whole life. this is america. we are a meritcratic society. we want to believe that you should be able to do if you are capable and call fight. you should have no restrictions. i have long believed we should be lifting all restrictions on women in the military. these two women who graduated from the grueling ranger course, it is a leadership course, it is hard core, physically difficult, mentally difficult, and they made it through. not only did they make it through but all the emotional
arguments about how women don't have the physical strength, if you listen to the press conference the day before they graduated the males were telling their colleagues how they couldn't carry their load and couldn't make it through the course and the women picked up their load and carried their load. i am so proud of these two women. they show by example of what women have been doing in the military for so long but not given the opportunities oftentimes to serve in certain position. we are waiting for the defense department to provide to congress their answers as why they would not open all remaining positions to women. i'm going to be looking very closely at their decision and i have been advocating they should open every single position to women. >> what positions are closed? >> generally ground combat positions that are closed. infantry. artillery. tanks. special forces. anything that was related to basically ground combat or even support units associated with ground combat.
it's 200,000 positions that are still closed. and look, i think this is about america. you pick the best man for the job even if it's woman. and you set the standards, and if you can meet the standard, why would you limit 51% of your population from competing when we want to have the best military. and we have had women serving in combat since the beginning of our country. the revolutionary war, we have had women serving. in iraq and iran, women are all over the battlefieldful they have shown bravery, had fire fights. paid the ultimate price, come home wounded. the debate is over. they have shown they are capable to combat. let's get over it and open up all positions nationwide.
>> another caller. >> caller: has any of the republican party gotten in touch with any of the other countries to let them know that they are not happy with the deal that's being made? i know thoo that there was an open letter sent to iran alerting them in terms of don't do this. but has any contact been made to the other countries? and the next thing is for the cash, really doesn't come from us. it comes from the other countries. and it is iran's cash that they are going to give to them. so what power would we have over the cash? and then the last thing is, we don't -- the other countries have said that they -- so far as i know, the other countries have said that they were going to go ahead with the deal. and everybody knows that with a deal you don't get all that you want. so what power would we have with iran to keep them from making any nuclear weapons if we are not a part of this? and the last question is --
>> oh, my gosh. >> i have got to stick to those three because we are running out of time with the congresswoman. >> let me just say when it comes to the other countries, just a few weeks ago i was over in israel with 36 gop members. and the week prior, there were 22 democrat members over visiting israel, again talking to the leaders, across the board, both the current leaders the opposition leaders, members of the military, think tanks academia, journalists. i mean everyone we talked to across the board in a very diverse political country. if you haven't been to israel or studied their politics, they are diverse just like we are. but on this particular issue they are all in agreement that this is a bad deal. they are confused as to why america negotiated some of the provisions in this deal that continues to be a threat to their country. i saw that firsthand. we were able to be on the board of the gaza strip. we were up on the border of syria hearing the bombs going off in the background, you know, just the proximity of if you look at israel being surrounded by hezbollah on the north and
lebanon with rockets being stockpiled, the collapsed failed state of syria, another border. the terrorist organization down in hamas. this is what they are surrounded by. and we still have the iranians chanting death to israel as the ink isn't even drying on this deal. so we've talked certainly to our closest ally in the region. i know there has been some discussions with some of our other allies, european allies. one in particular from france in a meeting with one of our armed services, bipart son subcommittee chair actually said, look, if america doesn't sign this thing like we can't walk away from america. we are going to have to choose. it's going to be bumpy but we are going to choose whether we want to stay with america or want to do business with iran. this is where we need to be moving towards. russia and china we maybe can't control what they are doing. but as a leader of the free world we need to stand up and
bring our allies together. >> want to get a few more callers in. bob in oxford, pennsylvania, hi bob. >> caller: good morning. i want to thank you for cspan. i think it's one of the best programs we have on television. the reason i was calling, i don't know which is the right way to go with that agreement, but i know if it were a republican president, it would be no problems with it because easy a democrat, the republicans are against it. if we had a republican president, the democrats would be against it. >> is it political? >> if you look at the key democrats, like schumer who have come out against it -- we have a number of ranking members on both the senate and the house that have stood up against it. it's not a partisan issue. unfortunately, the administration is really trying to crank up the pressure on his own party to make it a partisan issue to get that kind of
loyalty to stick with him. but if you look at some of the key democrats who are thought leaders on national security issues or really understanding this region, they have stood up against this thing. we need to get more democrats to follow them. >> brad in beckly, west virginia, a democrat, you are on the air. >> caller: yes, my question is, once again, this is all republicans, not one republican is going along with the president. and this is just another little situation that whatever obama wants, the republicans don't want. >> okay. brad, congresswoman just responded to. that let me ask you, because our time is short with you about what's happening in europe with the syrian refugees, the iraqi refugees that are trying to flee to europe. >> yes. >> should the united states take more -- some of the relief organizations want the united states to take 60,000 of these
refugees. >> look, i think we need to address the humanitarian problem. and i mean right now it's at europe's door stechlt we've had similar challenges, even last summer coming over our own border, right, from central american countries. so we have got to work together with our partners and allies to address the humanitarian situation. but we also need to address the root cause. we can't keep turning a blind eye to the fact that they have chaos going none the middle east that we've got isis continuing to rule territory that is a safe haven for terrorists and is recruiting foreign fighters and terrorists to flow in there from over 100 countries so far that we've got syria with about 250,000 or more dead in a failed state in the assad regime still being propped up with iran the one that we are negotiating with in this agreement. >> and now ruz. >> now ruz seems to be participating. again, i have been very critical that the administration does not have a comprehensive strategy for the middle east that it's been very incoherent and
actually confusing and conflicting at times, not addressing the shia/sunni dynamic we have going on. not addressing some concerns of our allies that don't want to got in related to the isis fight because they are looking back and seeing what's going on with the negotiations with iran because they think it is a bigger threat than isis. we can't come partmentalize these areas and issues without looking at them wholly and seeing we have a challenge here and we have got to address the root cause of trying to work with our allies to stabilize the region while not propping you up a large state sponsor of terror and legitimatizing them and giving them nuclear capability. the i yos is related to what's going mon in middle east. >> if you want to learn more, hear more from kongwoman martha mcsally, go to you are website, or also on twitter.
thank you. >> absolutely. well, both the house and the senate are considering the iran nuclear agreement today and tomorrow. the house is debating and voting on three resolutions and bills. and one that says the 60-day period granted to congress to review the deal hasn't started since president obama has not informed congress of any side deals regarding the agreement. there is also a measure to approve the agreement itself, and then a third to prevent the lifting of sanctions against iran until president obama leaves office. see live coverage of the house on our companion network, cspan. now, over in the senate, debate continues on that resolution of disapproval regarding the nuclear agreement. democrats and republicans alternating debate an hour at a time. a procedure vote now expected at about 3:45 eastern today. cspan 2 has live coverage of the senate. and we have more on the iran nuclear agreement coming up. as a house armed services committee will look at the deal's exact on missile defense and nonproliferation.
live coverage just under 90 minutes from now at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on cspan 3. while we wait, earlier today a republican presidential candidate and louisiana governor bobby jindle gives an appearance at the national press club to launch an attack on republican primary favorite donald trump. the governor said that mr. trump was not a serious candidate and only in the race for himself. he also condemned the iran deal and said congressional republican leaders have not fought the obama administration the way republican voters want them to. good morning, everybody. welcome to the national press club. my name is john hughes. i am answer edit for bloomberg first word. that's our breaking news desk here in washington for bloomberg. and i'm honored to be the president of the national press club. so our guest today is republican
presidential candidate and louisiana governor bobby gin dahl, what sits to my right, and he will be discussing many of the issues of the day through his comments and through the question-and-answer. and i also understand that you will have some things to say about the gop front-runner, donald trump. i also want to introduce up here at the desk sitting with me my national press club colleague, amy henderson. amy is the national press club speaker's committee member. and she helped organize this event. and thank you, amy, for all of your work in making this happen. i also want to welcome our cspan and fox and public radio audiences and remind you that you can follow the action on twitter. use the hashtag npclive. for those of you tweeting in the room, npclive as well as those of you following on the
internet. it's a good way to follow what's happening here in the room on social media. so, without any further hesitation, i want to welcome to the national press club gop presidential candidate and louisiana governor bobby jindle. >> thank you all vel very much, and thaenk very much to the folks of the press club for having me. and good morning. look, today i want to put aside my own political mission, my own campaign, just for a movement i want to talk about something more important than myself or any single candidate. the idea of america is slipping away from us. what do i mean by that? we're on the path towards socialism. in america today we have over $18 trillion of debt, planned parenthood is dismemmingen and selling babies across the country. the idea of america is slipping away from us. that is the context for what i want to talk about today.
yet there is a great opportunity for us to get our country back. there is a hunger to get america back. i see it in the polls. i see it in people's eyes in the early states. you see it all around us. people are hungry and eager to get the idea of america back. i believe our country is ready for it. the liberalism, the incompetence of the obama administration brought us to the edge. the idea of america is slipping away. the people can see it. and they are demanding radical change. they are demanding that we get back on the path to greatness. the american people have a massive appetite for a rebirth, a massive ab tight for making america great again. that is the context and the reason for my remarks today. i want to start by saying, i like the idea of donald trump. i like the idea of an outsider. i like the idea of somebody willing to say the things you are not supposed to say. i like the idea of somebody going after the d.c. political class. the reality is, they are full of foolishness and nonsense.
donald trump's -- donald trump's diagnosis is exactly right -- the political class is the problem. the problem is, donald trump's prescription is exactly wrong. his diagnosis on the political class is right. his prescription is wrong. his prescription is that he is the solution. donald trump's not the solution. the problem is that donald trump himself is full of foolishness and nonsense as well. look, i'll start by saying, i like the idea of donald trump, and i like the show. i like the donald trump act and show. it's a lot of fun. it's entertainment. i laughed when he went on live tv and give out lindsey graham's cell phone number. i thought it was entertaining when he said that audiences were falling asleep at jeb bush's rallies. i thought it was great when he gave helicopter rides to kids at the iowa state fair. it's been a lot of fun. but here's the problem. donald trump is not a serious candidate. he's a narcissist. he is an ego maniac. the only thing he believes in is himself. the reality is that i want to
say what everybody is thinking about donald trump, but afraid to say. everybody knows this is true. this isn't -- this unt shhh be new, the idea of the donald trump act is great, the reality of donald trump, however, is absurd. he is nonserious. he is a carnival act. here's the truth about donald trump. donald trump is shallow. he has no understanding of policy. he is full of blue jacketser. he has no substance. he lacks the intellectual policy. you can't argue policy with this guy. the only thing that donald trump believes in is himself had. he tells us the health care plan will be fabulous. he tells us the tax plan will be really terrific. he is shallow, there is no substance. you doesn't have any idea about policy, doesn't know what he is talking about. he makes it up on the fly. he doesn't believe in liberated government. he has told us. over and over from his belief in socialized medicine to tax increases he has told us over
and over he has no problem with big top-down style government. the only problem he has got with d.c. today, he has no problem with big top-down style government. his only problem is he's not the one running it today. he is not against big government he is just against the folks running it. donald trump is for donald trump. he believes in nothing other than himself. looks he's not a liberal. he's not a moderate he's not a conservative, he's not a democrat. he's not a republican. he's not an in. donald trump is for donald trump. he is not for anything. he is not against anything. issues don't mean anything to him. issues or policies are not important to him. he is for donald. donald trump is a narcissist and an ego maniac. that may sound like a serious charge to make buts something everybody knows to be true. he knows it true. he celebrates it. he says kanye west is great. why? because kanye west likes trump.
so therefore, kanye west is great. he is an entertaining narcissist, but he is still a narcissist. like all narcissists, donald trump is insecure, and weak. he's afraid of being exposed. that's why he tells us always and constantly how big and strong and wealthy he is. look, we all know that -- would have a all met people like donald trump who continue to tell us how insignificant everybody else is. we know that only a very weak and small person needs to conisn'tly tell us how strong and powerful they are. donald trump believes he is the answer to every question. donald trump is dangerous, but not in the way you think. the reality is, we have an incredible opportunity to turn our country around. and the question for conservatives is this -- are we going to rely and trust proven conservative principles or turn to a man who believes in nothing but himself? that's the essential question we
have to answer right now. are we going to miss this opportunity? are we going to apply conservative principles or trust a man who believes in nothing but himself? that's what makes donald trump so dangerous. many people think he is dangero dangerous. you wouldn't want somebody such as that, a hothead with his fingers on the nuclear codes. that's true. but that's not the real danger. the real danger is that ironically, donald trump could destroy america's chance to be great again. andt as conservatives we must not miss this opportunity. the democrat party has screwed things up. they have run our country into the ground. they are destroying our economy. they are about to allow iran to become a nuclear power. they are running the weakest candidate in the weakest possible campaign. they are giving us this election on a silver platter. if we blow this opportunity we may never get it again. this election is not just about the republican party or about
conservatives, it is about saving our country. rescuing the idea of america, making america great again. donald trump is not a serious act. he is not a serious person. looking it's all just an act, a solo show. the joke's on us. he is laughing all the way to the bank or to the polling station. p.t. barn up was never more right than right now. now you may have recently heard and seen that donald trump said that the bible was his favorite book. when asked he couldn't even name a specific or a single bible verse that was important to him, that had an impact on him. do you know why? it's clear donald trump has never read the bible. the reason why know he has never read the bible, he is not in the bible. folks, donald trump is not a serious person. this is a carnival act. these are serious times for our country. the democrats have practically gift wrapped this election for us. the whole thing is set up for us to win.
now we are flirting with nominated a nonserious, unstable, substance-free candidate. we cannot send this narcissist -- we cannot nominate this ego maniac. nominating donald trump is a certain way for us to ruin our opportunity to make america great again. look, the silly summer season is over. it's time to get serious about saving our country. it's time to send donald trump back to reality tv. it's time to tell him look you have been great, you have been great for ratings, it's been great fun, you have been almost as good as don rickels, the show has been a blast. and he was right when he borrowed ron reagan's theme when he said we need to make america great again. we do need to make america great again. we do need to fire everybody in washington. we do need to get rid of politic correctness. all of that is true. we can make america great again. but we will not do that by putting a nonserious and unstable narcissist in the white house. our country is worth saving.
this is our time to saerve save it. the conservative cause deserves more unanimous a power hungry shark. he eats whatever is in front of him. sooner or later, we'll be his next meal. this is our moment. this is our time. we can win right now. or we can be the biggest fools of all time and put our faith not in our principles but in an ego maniacal man made who has no principles. if we nominate him, he will self-destruct. he may be the last gift, the last chance that hillary clinton has. even if he were to win, it doesn't matter. he believes in nothing. we have no idea what he would actually do in the white house. folks it is time to get serious about making america great again. it is time for donald trump to take the ride down the elevator. it is time for us to tell him, donald, you are fired. it is time to tell him, we will not put an ego maniacal
unserious person in the white house. we need to put a committed conservative in the white house, one who will make our country great again, who will ignore the professional political class in washington, d.c. donald trump's campaign is not about making america great again. it's about making donald trump great. look, obviously, i think i am the right man for this job. but the voters will make that decision. america is ready for a politically incorrect committed conservative candidate. if i haven't been clear, i think the donald trump show has been entertaining. i have enjoyed him as a reality tv show star. just because a lot of people like watching kim kardashian, we wouldn't put her in the white house either. he is an unserious unstable narcissistic ego maniac. it is time for us to put a serious committed conservative. let's make america great again. it starts by firing donald trump. thank you, and i look forward to taking your questions.
>> thank you governor. you can stay right there at the podium. the cnn poll that was out this morning said that trump is the first candidate to surpass 30%. did you and other gop candidates wait too long in going after him the way you are today? >> look, i think that the summer silly season has been fun. but i think there is plenty of time. the first votes will be cast in iowa in february. one thing donald trump is right about, it is time to fire the professional political class in d.c. the voters i have seen in the early states are i think reier, angrier at the republicans than they are even at obama. the choice we are given is you can vote for honest socialists in the democrat or honest conservatives in the republican party. i think they are looking for committed conservative performers who will be honest with them and do what they say they are going to do in office.
it's not too late to get rid of this norris cyst, not too late to rely on our conservative principles. but now is the time to back our principles not someone who believes only in himself. >> some of the other candidates followed trmp's ideas for immigration. he seemed to set the tone for all the candidates on immigration. yesterday we saw one of the candidates appear with trump at a rally. are some of your colleagues in the gop undercutting your message by giving trump credibility? >> two things. i can't he speak for other candidates. i'm going the fight for conservative ideas. >> i'm going to fight for my party it. i'm going to fight for my country, most importantly. but i will say this, he is a dangerous man. any candidate out there enabling donald trump is making a serious mistake. i don't think it makes sense to empower him, enable him, i don't think it makes sense to kiss up
to him hoping something will rub off on the other candidates. the reality is he is not a serious man. he is not a conservative. the only thing he believes in is himself. so i think others are making a mistake. i think mistake. i think it's time for us to have a real fight for conservative beliefs. we need to stand up against the d.c. establishment and this narcissist. any candidate kigs up to him hoping some candidate kissing up to him. look, anybody knows, if you want to deal with the school yard bull y you take them on directly. >> several have written that trump has made it more difficult for people in your party to attract latino voters. how is that true, do you think, and how will you overcome that? >> trump, every day he finds himself to insult another group. he insults women, this group, that group. we can apply conservative principles. we need to be up front and say, he's not a conservative. he's not going to be the republican nominee. he believes in himself.
he believes in ratings. i think we fight for every vote by staying true to our principles. this country is hungry for conservative reform. this country is hungry to make america great again. we can and should win the american election. hillary clinton is self-destructing right now. she's losing to a socialist. folks, she's losing to a socialist in the united states. we won the cold war. other countries are moving to capitalism, free market democracies. are we going to be the only country that moves in the other way? hillary clinton is losing to a socialist. a man -- i'm not calling him names. bernie sanders calls himself a socialist. that just means he's more honest than anybody else in the democratic party. hillary clinton is no different. they're socialists as well. they just won't say it. we have the opportunity to rescue our country, let's not give it away. . >> what do you mean when you said we have to get rid of
political correctness? noo there's this fear you're not supposed to say certain things. you have oourts -- for example, a university up in new hampshire is now saying, well, you can't say rich up. can't say american. you can't use these terms. have you a member of congress trying to introduce legislation saying they shouldn't use the terms husband or wife. folks on the left saying america shouldn't be the melting pot. we should be the salad bowl. this is nonsense. i think the american people are tired of it. you talked about immigration. the left says it's culturally arrogant to say america is the melting pot. that's ridiculous. that's been a strength of america for centuries. the reality is, is that immigration without assimilation is not immigration. it's invasion. and i think the american people are looking for somebody to stop the political correctness, stop the nonens and just be honest with them. $18 trillion of debt. we have deniers pretending we're not going broke. we have planned parenthood. hillary clinton on the left, they call it fetal tissue or specimens. they refuse to use the words
babies. i think the american people have had enough with the political correctness. they said, just be honest with us. tell us we're going bankrupt. tell us what's going on in planned parenthood clinics. tell us what's going on with weak immigration policy. i think it's time to put an end to the political correct nonsense and be truthful with each other. whether it's an immigration policy or an immigration policy that's a dumb immigration policy. we could secure the boefrder in six months if we were serious. democrats don't to want do it. republicans are afraid of big business. they don't to want stand up to big business. it's time for to us fire this group and time to get back to conservative ideas to get our country back on the right path. >> i mentioned the cnn poll. that poll continues to have you down near the bottom. why hasn't your own campaign taken hold yet? >> look, we're doing well in the early states. we spent our time in iowa. we're gaining ground there, making moves there. seeing larger and larger crowds, going to every county, doing town hall meetings. there's a saying in louisiana, you go hunting where the ducks
are. first votes will be cast in iowa first week of february. we're fighting there and making up ground there. let me be clear, today, today, this is -- i'm putting aside my political mission for a moment today because this is important. this is bigger than simply just my campaign. this is about where do we go as a country? this is about the direction, not only the republican party and the conservative movement, but it's what do we do in the face of the fact that the idea of america is slipping away from us? do we seize the opportunity to get back on the right path or do we waste it because of this narcissist? because we're all enjoying laughing at his jokes and outrageous behavior. it's time to get serious. >> you have supported kentucky county clerk kim davis and her refusal so sign gay marriage licenses, saying it is az religious freedom issue, yet we had the supreme court rug ruling and some of those licenses have been issued. should those licenses continue to be issued regardless of her personal beliefs? >> a couple things.
i think it's amazing am neshg you can jeopardize national security and run for president but oppose gay marriage and end up in jail. you shouldn't have to choose in america between following your conscious and keeping your job. i signed an executive order called the marriage conscience act in louisiana saying we will not discriminate against individuals who have a traditional view of marriage, between a man and a woman, because of their sincerely-held religious beliefs. i believe that should be true in every state. the founding fathers anticipated this conflict. they enshrined us writing the first amendment of the constitution. she shouldn't have to give up her christian beliefs because she's a clerk of court. no business owner should have to give up their conscious, sacrifice their sincerely held religious beliefs. united states of america did not create ljs liberty. religious liberty created united states of america. it is one of our foundational rights. there's no freedom of speech, freedom of association without our religious liberty rights. i'm pleased she's no longer in
prison but i don't think she should have to choose between following her conscious and keeping her job. >> should officials refusing to issue gun permits be treated like kim davis? >> i'm not aware of a sincerely-held religious conviction. the reality is that today it is evangelical christians, orthodox catholics and other christians facing discrimination and persecution. the reality is it's florists, musicians, caterers, faced with thousand of dollars in fines, loss of business licenses, loss of business. i know the left likes to make up hypotheticals what's not happening. what's happening is christians are being discriminated against in the united states and that's wrong. we have first amendment rights. i know the aclu and other groups loved rifra when it was for other religious minorities. now that it's christians facing discrimination, they've shown hypocrisy. i'm a christian.
i believe in the traditional view of a marriage as between a man and a woman. even folks that don't, i hope, would believe in the rights, the first amendment rights, for folks like the clerk in kentucky and business owners and others across our country. >> what do you hope it will accomplish and how will it withstand a legal chal sneng. >> i hope other states will do what we have done. we passed freedom restoration act we did this by executive order in my first term ahead of the supreme court's actual ruling in the marriage case. i said this in my first presidential debate one of my first executive orders would be to establish the same freedom rights through presidential executive order. i would hope you wouldn't need that. i would hope our first constitutional amendment rights would be enough. unfortunately, they're not being protected. that would allow individuals across the america to live their lives 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week according to their since sincere sincerely-held religious beliefs. when hk had hk says you have religious freedom, they just mean a couple hours a week in church. religious freedom is living your life according to your sincerely-held religious beliefs. it's a foundational right of freedom in our country since our founding, it's important to fight for this right. they are trying to make america a secular country. that's not what the founding fathers intended. >> next week's debate in california, you will likely be asked about your policy on sanctuary cities. what about your approach on sanctuary cities? the questioner also says, do you acknowledge research showing immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than native born americans? >> i know congress wants to defund sanctuary cities. that's great. i called it partners in crime package. i've said mayors and councilmen should be held criminally responsible, criminally liable as accessories to the crimes by
those who shouldn't be here anyway. if you have local oe officials intentionallily breaking laws, they should be criminally liable as accessories to those crimes. if you did that, locked up a couple folks, you wouldn't have sanctuary cities anymore. we have a supreme court where they don't think they need to read the constitution, the president thinks he can pick and choose which laws he can follow and federal officials don't think they have to folt law anymore. we need to go back to where we are a nation of laws and have to follow the laws. i think it makes sense to pass them to make them criminally liable. in terms of the data, i would ask folks, are they willing to go and meet and talk to kate's father? are they willing to talk to the victims that have been impacted by these crimes by folks that shouldn't have been here in the first place. one violent crime that could have been prevented is one too many. the reality is folks shouldn't be here in the first place. cities shouldn't be passing policies to break the federal law. if you don't like the law, change the law. that's what we do in this country. you don't get to pick and choose
which laws you want to enforce. >> have you talked about immigration and assimilation and the need for immigrants to want to be americans. how is american defined and who makes the definition? how can it be enforced? >> look, what i believe when it comes to immigration, a smart immigration policy can make our country stronger. a dumb one makes us weaker. a smart policy says, if you want to come, you should be an american. i'm tired of hyphenated americans. we're all americans. if folks don't want to be americans, we shouldn't allow them to be here in the first place. that's common sense. millions of people want to come here. why in the world wouldn't we pick those that want to be here? secondly, i think we should say folks that want to here shouldn't use their freedoms to undermine freedoms for others. they should learn the english, come here legally, roll up their sleeves and get to work. there's nothing wrong with your heritage and where your from. my parents came here legally.